Strategic Decision-Making in Multiagent Domains: A Weighted Constrained Potential Dynamic Game Approach | IEEE Journals & Magazine | IEEE Xplore

Strategic Decision-Making in Multiagent Domains: A Weighted Constrained Potential Dynamic Game Approach


Abstract:

In interactive multiagent settings, decision-making and planning are challenging mainly due to the agents' interconnected objectives. Dynamic game theory offers a formal ...Show More

Abstract:

In interactive multiagent settings, decision-making and planning are challenging mainly due to the agents' interconnected objectives. Dynamic game theory offers a formal framework for analyzing such intricacies. Yet, solving constrained dynamic games and determining the interaction outcome in the form of generalized Nash equilibria (GNE) pose computational challenges due to the need for solving constrained coupled optimal control problems. In this article, we address this challenge by proposing to leverage the special structure of many real-world multiagent interactions. More specifically, our key idea is to leverage constrained dynamic potential games, which are games for which GNE can be found by solving a single constrained optimal control problem associated with minimizing the potential function. We argue that constrained dynamic potential games can effectively facilitate interactive decision-making in many multiagent interactions. We will identify structures in realistic multiagent interactive scenarios that can be transformed into weighted constrained potential dynamic games (WCPDGs). We will show that the GNE of the resulting WCPDG can be obtained by solving a single constrained optimal control problem. We will demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method through various simulation studies and show that we achieve significant improvements in solve time compared to state-of-the-art game solvers. We further provide experimental validation of our proposed method in a navigation setup involving two quadrotors carrying a rigid object while avoiding collisions with two humans.
Published in: IEEE Transactions on Robotics ( Volume: 41)
Page(s): 2749 - 2764
Date of Publication: 17 March 2025

ISSN Information:

Funding Agency:

References is not available for this document.

I. Introduction

Numerous robotic applications, such as autonomous driving, crowd–robot navigation, and delivery robots, include scenarios that require multiagent interactions. In these situations, a robot is tasked with engaging with either human individuals or other robots present in the surrounding environment. Making decisions and creating plans in these domains is challenging as agents in multiagent systems may have different goals or objectives. This requires agents to develop strategies that account for how other agents will react to their actions, i.e., each agent needs to reason about the likely reactions of other agents in their decision-making. Furthermore, agents may need to satisfy some task constraints, such as collision avoidance and goal constraints. Such reasoning may be computationally demanding, requiring agents to perform joint prediction and planning.

Select All
1.
T. Başar and G. J. Olsder, Dynamic Noncooperative Game Theory, Philadelphia, PA, USA : SIAM, 1998.
2.
R. Isaacs, Differential Games: A Mathematical Theory With Applications to Warfare and Pursuit, Control and Optimization. New York, NY, USA : Courier Corporation, 1999.
3.
D. Monderer and L. S. Shapley, “Potential games,” Games Econ. Behav., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 124–143, 1996.
4.
T. Kavuncu, A. Yaraneri, and N. Mehr, “Potential ILQR: A potential-minimizing controller for planning multi-agent interactive trajectories,” 2021, arXiv:2107.04926.
5.
M. Bhatt, A. Yaraneri, and N. Mehr, “Efficient constrained multi-agent interactive planning using constrained dynamic potential games,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., Detroit, MI, USA, 2023, pp. 7303–7310, doi: 10.1109/IROS55552.2023.10342328.
6.
T. A. Howell, B. E. Jackson, and Z. Manchester, “Altro: A fast solver for constrained trajectory optimization,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., 2019, pp. 7674–7679.
7.
S. Lucia, A. Tătulea-Codrean, C. Schoppmeyer, and S. Engell, “Rapid development of modular and sustainable nonlinear model predictive control solutions,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 60, pp. 51–62, 2017.
8.
W. Li and E. Todorov, “Iterative linear quadratic regulator design for nonlinear biological movement systems,” in Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Informat. Control, Autom. Robot., SciTePress, 2004, vol. 2, pp. 222–229.
9.
J. Yu and S. M. LaValle, “Optimal multirobot path planning on graphs: Complete algorithms and effective heuristics,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1163–1177, Oct. 2016.
10.
S. Tang, J. Thomas, and V. Kumar, “Hold or take optimal plan (HOOP): A quadratic programming approach to multi-robot trajectory generation,” Int. J. Robot. Res., vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1062–1084, 2018.
11.
F. Augugliaro, A. P. Schoellig, and R. D'Andrea, “Generation of collision-free trajectories for a quadrocopter fleet: A sequential convex programming approach,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., 2012, pp. 1917–1922.
12.
V. R. Desaraju and J. P. How, “Decentralized path planning for multi-agent teams with complex constraints,” Auton. Robots, vol. 32, pp. 385–403, 2012.
13.
C. Toumieh and A. Lambert, “Decentralized multi-agent planning using model predictive control and time-aware safe corridors,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 11110–11117, Oct. 2022.
14.
D. Zhou, Z. Wang, S. Bandyopadhyay, and M. Schwager, “Fast, on-line collision avoidance for dynamic vehicles using buffered Voronoi cells,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1047–1054, Apr. 2017.
15.
L. Lv, S. Zhang, D. Ding, and Y. Wang, “Path planning via an improved DQN-based learning policy,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 67319–67330, 2019.
16.
H. Qie, D. Shi, T. Shen, X. Xu, Y. Li, and L. Wang, “Joint optimization of multi-UAV target assignment and path planning based on multi-agent reinforcement learning,” IEEE access, vol. 7, pp. 146264–146272, 2019.
17.
Z. Liu, B. Chen, H. Zhou, G. Koushik, M. Hebert, and D. Zhao, “Mapper: Multi-agent path planning with evolutionary reinforcement learning in mixed dynamic environments,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., 2020, pp. 11748–11754.
18.
S. H. Semnani, H. Liu, M. Everett, A. De Ruiter, and J. P. How, “Multi-agent motion planning for dense and dynamic environments via deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 3221–3226, Apr. 2020.
19.
A. P. Vinod, S. Safaoui, A. Chakrabarty, R. Quirynen, N. Yoshikawa, and S. Di Cairano, “Safe multi-agent motion planning via filtered reinforcement learning,” in Proc. 2022 Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., 2022, pp. 7270–7276.
20.
G. Papoudakis, F. Christianos, A. Rahman, and S. V. Albrecht, “Dealing with non-stationarity in multi-agent deep reinforcement learning,” 2019, arXiv:1906.04737.
21.
C. S. De Witt, “Is independent learning all you need in the starcraft multi-agent challenge?,” 2020, arXiv:2011.09533.
22.
H. Kretzschmar, M. Spies, C. Sprunk, and W. Burgard, “Socially compliant mobile robot navigation via inverse reinforcement learning,” Int. J. Robot. Res., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1289–1307, 2016.
23.
S. Parsons and M. Wooldridge, “Game theory and decision theory in multi-agent systems,” Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst., vol. 5, pp. 243–254, 2002.
24.
D. Sadigh, S. Sastry, S. A. Seshia, and A. D. Dragan, “Planning for autonomous cars that leverage effects on human actions,” in Proc. Robot.: Sci. Syst., Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2016, vol. 2, pp. 1–9.
25.
J. F. Fisac, E. Bronstein, E. Stefansson, D. Sadigh, S. S. Sastry, and A. D. Dragan, “Hierarchical game-theoretic planning for autonomous vehicles,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., 2019, pp. 9590–9596.
26.
A. Turnwald and D. Wollherr, “Human-like motion planning based on game theoretic decision making,” Int. J. Social Robot., vol. 11, pp. 151–170, 2019.
27.
R. Spica, E. Cristofalo, Z. Wang, E. Montijano, and M. Schwager, “A real-time game theoretic planner for autonomous two-player drone racing,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1389–1403, Oct. 2020.
28.
M. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Talbot, J. C. Gerdes, and M. Schwager, “Game theoretic planning for self-driving cars in competitive scenarios,” in IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1313–1325, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1109/TRO.2020.3047521.
29.
Z. Wang, R. Spica, and M. Schwager, “Game theoretic motion planning for multi-robot racing,” in Proc. Distrib. Auton. Robot. Syst.: 14th Int. Symp., Springer, 2019, pp. 225–238.
30.
K. Miller and S. Mitra, “Multi-agent motion planning using differential games with lexicographic preferences,” in Proc. IEEE 61st Conf. Decis. Control, 2022, pp. 5751–5756.

Contact IEEE to Subscribe

References

References is not available for this document.